Excerpt:Citing a AP analysis "that found how Senator
Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again,
and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me," she went on to say:
"There's a pattern emerging here."

There is indeed a pattern emerging -- and it is
a pattern that must dismay everyone who admires the Clintons and has defended them against the
charge that they are exploiting racial divisions.

But this time she violated the rhetorical rules,
no doubt by mistake.

Well, wait a minute, Joe.If her violation was "no
doubt a mistake," why pin the Wallace
label on her?And what did she say that made you wince?

It was her offhand reference to "working, hard-working
Americans, white Americans" that raises the specter of old Dixie demagogues like Wallace
and Lester Maddox. Was she dog-whistling to thevoters of Kentucky and West Virginia?

I'm not sure what "hard-working" meant in the
South in the sixties, but today,I'd say "hard-working" means you wear jeans to
work, not a $3000 suit.

When you take out all the words that aren't needed,
Hilary said,"Obama has trouble winning over white, blue
collar voters."

How can it be racist to state that fact?

Remember when Obama went bowling?
He did it to impress those people, whatever you want to call
them.
Obama wins blacks 9-1 and it's not racist to say that,
but if he has trouble with white voters, it's racist to say
so?

While I still cannot believe she actually intended
any such nefarious meaning,

...but if you don't believe it - why the "channeling
Wallace" headline?

...she seemed to be equating "hard-working
Americans" with "white Americans."

I disagree.The phrase "hard-working people" includes
blacks.In this scenario, the blacks have already gone
to Obama.It would be grossly incorrect to say Obama can't
win with hard-working blacks,so what's left is the hard-working white people.
Am I wrong?

And that blacks almost exclusively go for Obama, why is that her cross
to bear?
He's the "black" candidate, and that's OK.
But if she's the "white" candidate, that's proof she's channeling George
Wallace?
Under those rules, how can she be anything but a racist?

Which is precisely what Wallace and his cohort
used to do with their drawling refrain about welfare and affirmative action. This is
the grating sound of Nixon's Southern strategy, even though Tricky Dick would never quite stoop
to saying such things in public.

Whoa, so Hillary is now Nixon, but without the
good manners?I don't suppose there are two Joe Conasons
at Salon.com? :)

Just kidding...

The tragedy is that neither Clinton carries even
the slightest racial animus...

So I ask again - if "neither
Clinton carries even the slightest racial animus,"why do you pin the Wallace and Nixononian labels
on her? How does that fit?

Why is it that every pundit on TV can talk about race, and Obama
can talk about race,
but if Bill or Hillary uses the words "black" or "white," the sky caves
in on them?

So the Clintons probably understand the essential
evil of racism better than most white politicians. They have certainly done more than most of today's
white politicians to combat that evil.That is why, as they contemplate the conclusion
of this campaign, they deserve better from themselves than to encourage doubt about
their decency and character.

But - what if we gave our former president and his wife the benefit
of the doubt?

Isn't it possible that seasoned speakers, talking for 14 hours a day
on a hundred topics,
could make simple verbal slips that could then be shaped and spun and
misconstrued by
that right-wing-owned Whore Media Monster that needs to be fed 24/7?

John McCain is unable to remember who's backing the Sunnis, and that
doesn't get much press,
but if either Clinton uses a word than can be endlessly bounced around
the echo chamber,
we get dozens of round tables with breathless supposition and saliciousness
- because that sells.

Note: I'm not blaming you, Joe.
You've been
one of the straightest shooters.